The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, AUGUST 3, 1907. CAPTURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13355, 3 August 1907, Page 4

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, AUGUST 3, 1907. CAPTURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.

Tlie cablegrams referring to the proeeedings at tha Hague Conference have been of such a, scrappy and desultory character that it is difficult to follow the discussions and resolutions with the attention t'i which their importance entitles them. A question of vital interest to the British Empire iu the treatment of private properly at sea during the existence of a state of war between two or more nations, but even on this question we are left very much in the dark as to the views of the British representatives at the. Conference. Wo know that they have succeeded in carrying through a. committee stage their proposal for tha abolition of contraband, which oil the face of it looks lifcs a contradiction of their opposition to America's suggestion, put forward at an earlier tslage of ths,Conference, for the inviolability of private property at sea. A message today minimis-*! tho importance of the adoption of the contraband proposal by the Fourth Committee, and forecasts the rejection of the remit .by the full Conference, this'prophecy being based on the 'standing of tli-? Powers which are opposed to the suggested abolition of contraband. America, Germany, Fiance, and Russia, all threw their influence against the change, so that it will not be surprising it the Conference should reverse tha decision of the Fourth Committee. Kven Britain herself seems to advocate this alteration for reasons which do not touch upon tho right of capture of an enemy's commerce. Lord Beay explained to the Fourth Committee that in proposing the abolition of contraband, Britain Was influenced by the fact that complications moulting from the capture of ships carrying contraband were becoming so dangerous that they were not compensated for by any real utility. Tho difficulty, of course, is to determine what is contraband, and the conditions under which a combatant is entitled to appropriate a vessel. America's suggested definition, announced about a week ago, is that, " absolute, contraband" should include arms, ammunition,, and objects destined for the enemy's military establishment, while " conditional" contraband should cover, articles destined for the enemy's tire which, ,by reason of their quality and quantity, must be' regarded as contraband. This definition itself is mifficknt indication of the difficulty of drawing tho line between legitimate articles of trade, and articles intended or calculated to assist the forces of ; oho belligerent to the prejudice of the other, though matters would be simplified a good deal if the Powers assented to America's further suggestion that belligerent should supply neutrals with a list of objects regarded as absolute and conditional contraband twentyfour hours before the right to seize accrues. But,, while the definition remains so vaguo a's it is at present, there is always room for the friction; which occurred during the .recent Avar between Rusjsia and Japan, when BritHi vessels especially had reason to complain of the Russian interpretation of the doctrine of contraband. Wei are not quite clear what th? position would bo if the Conference endorsed the voto of the Committee on Britain's proposal to do away entirely with contraband, but the suggestion cannot bo intended to infringe upon the right of a belligerent to suspend the maritime commerce of his enemy. To Britain especially it is of vital importance that tho existing riglit of capture filial I be maintained, although there are eminent men, including such an authority as the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Lorebuiii, who claim that it would be a great gain to our nation if the world were to adopt the American doctrine of the inviolability of private property at sea. The opinion of naval experts, however, is unanimously against .Lord Loreburn. Captain Malum himself, the greatest of American, authorities, utterly condemns the rule which his own country is seeking to impose upon the volumo of international law. He ricoubs the idea that any strong naval l'ower can gain from having its own miorchant ships exempt from capture if at ths- same time it is debarred from seizing those of its enemies. Britain, for instance, would only benefit by the proposed change if she- intended to act upon the defensive and abandon all notion of keeping thu command of the sea. If she means to kep (lie command of the ocean, and to act on tho offensive, then tdk- will be able, in a sufficient degree, to 'protect her own shipping while she cuts the communications of her opponents by sweeping their mercantile mariiio off the sea. The only nation likely to gain by the American proposal is one with a big volume of seabo; no trade and an insufficient navy —the position iu which America found herself after tho War of Independence. It was this that made her an ardent advocate of tho inviolability of private property at eea, a rolo 'she has continued to occupy to the present day, but a rolo which Great Britain is not at all likely to undertake.